Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Changing the rhetoric

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Actually, I think the theory behind giving tax cuts to big corporations is that they will use that money to expand and create new jobs, It's called tickle down economics, or voodoo economics depending on weather you agree with it or not. I could be wrong, but I don't think filthy rich people make up that large a voting block, so I feel the argument that Bush does this to buy votes doesn't really stand up at all. You could however, argue that Bush was doing these things so that large companies would give large contributions to his campaign, and you'd no doubt be correct, this is politics we're talking about

    Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
    Originally posted by Kitsune
    Okay, so you don't say what you mean and when someone calls you on it, they are to stupid to understand your argument. That's really great debating there. Up till now I thought you were above this sort of tactic,.
    Fine, fine, FINE! I don't think it's complicated, but I'll explain it for those in the back of the class...

    When Bush gives a HUGE tax break to big corporations and extremely wealthy businessmen, he is buying votes. You don't have to be Einstein to see how it works: Bush gives them tax breaks, overturns inconvenient policies, etc. and in return, they make sure he stays in office. Individually, this means they VOTE FOR HIM. Look at the donation disclosures by huge companies. Most give huge gobs of money to Bush (and other right-wing campaigns). Are you saying they aren't also voting for him?

    I am truly sorry for giving you more credit than you deserved, Kitsune. I honestly thought you could figure this one out on your own. I stand humbly corrected.

    If you'd like a fun and entertaining source by which you could learn how this stuff (highly corrupted political lobbying) works, read any novel by Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen. I recommend Sick Puppy.

    Comment


    • #92
      Please read my previous post for info. on how politics works these days. And now... something I posted here a while back, but I have no problem repeating myself for those who missed it...

      Trickle-down economics. It was started by Reagan. His policy relied on the rich people putting money back into the system by creating new jobs, investing in America. It is said that IT DOESN'T WORK. Reagan tripled the national debt. Lots of these rich people will not argue that there is such thing as a global economy. Well because of global economy, a lot of the money leaves America. Has it come back to America? You should be able to answer that one. Read into the terms: outsourcing and offshore tax shelters. Ever heard that "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer?" Well, now you know where it comes from. :)
      I don't even know where Bush has put us economically. I'll take the root canal instead. :D
      _________________
      Don't believe it? Take a bite of it...
      Trickle-down Economics and Ronald Reagan
      http://www.bigissueground.com/politi...wnreagan.shtml

      Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work
      http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

      [Bush] Tax Cut Reminiscent of "Trickle-Down" Economics
      http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/010410/taxcut.shtml
      "Today, new President George W. Bush sounds like an echo of 1981 as he calls for a huge tax cut..." [Regan's legacy...] "the biggest tax cut in U.S. history: $1.8 trillion over the next nine years. But since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy. Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled."
      [Thanks, Ronnie!]

      Everything T.D.E. in Google...
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...down+economics
      ================

      To provoke thought... if you think the US economy is good, and will continue to be good and/ or get good under Bush, what news are you following?
      How much do you think it costs us to be in a war with Iraq? Is it good for the economy?
      How can anyone mention "good" and "economy" in the same sentence when we have stats like these?....

      2003 bankruptcy stats...

      http://www.members.aol.com/Jerricho1...uptcyStats.jpg

      ================
      The following is not new info. either. It's from a 2002 website. Shudder to think how current stats might look!....

      http://www.newstepsolutions.com/debt-statistics.htm

      DEBT STATISTICS
      The average American household has 13 payment cards, including credit cards, debt cards and store cards. There are 1.3 billion payment cards in circulation in the United States.
      Americans made $1.1 Trillion worth of credit card purchases in 1999.
      Americans carry, on average, $5,800 in credit card debt from month to month. If one were to make only the minimum payment on that debt every month, it would take 30 years to pay off - and include an additional $15,000 in interest.
      According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, 302,829 people file for bankruptcy in the first quarter of 2000.
      On average the typical credit card purchase is 112% higher than if using cash.
      Over 40% of US families spend more than they earn. (Federal Reserve).

      96% of all Americans will retire financially dependent on the government, family, or charity. (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
      Almost one out of every 100 households in the United States will file for bankruptcy.
      [compiled from www.cardweb.com]

      A 1992 Federal Reserve study showed that 43% of U.S. families spent more than they earned.
      According to the National Association of Realtors the average homeowner stays in their home for 7.1 years (1993 statistic). With an 8% mortgage, they will sell their home still owing over 90% on their mortgage. If they were to continue this trend they would NEVER pay off a mortgage in their lifetime!
      Only 2% of homes in America are paid for!
      On average, Americans can expect to receive just 37% of the annual retirement income they will need to live comfortably. [America's Retirement Crisis: The Search For Solutions- Openheimer Funds Dist., Inc. 1993]
      As of 1995 92% of U.S. family disposable income is spent on paying debts, up from 65% in 1975. [Federal Reserve]
      For the year ending June 30, 1996, personal bankruptcies totaled more than ONE MILLION for the first time ever in a twelve month period. That is almost one bankruptcy for every 100 U.S. households.

      On average, you will spend 112% more on a credit card purchase than when using cash.
      The average household has four credit cards with balances around $4,800, up from two cards and $2340 in balances five years ago. [RAM Research, 1996]
      Making the minimum payment on a $4,800 balance (average balance of U.S. cardholders) at the average annual 17% interest rate, it would take you 39 years and seven months to pay off. You would pay $10,818.63 in interest alone, and a total of $15,619 for the privilege of charging the $4,800!
      Nearly half of all Americans (46%) have less than $10,000 saved for their retirement. And 39% of Americans are anxious about their ability to achieve their desired retirement lifestyle. [Miles To Go: A Status Report on Americans' Plans for Retirement-Public Agenda, 1997] It can either be the golden years or the golden arches.
      An $8,000 debt at a rate of 18% interest will take you over 25 years to repay and cost you over $24,000 in the long run.

      Can't blame it all on politicians, sure. That's not my argument. But are these stats a common phenomenon of a healthy country? Is it anyone's fault? How did this happen? If your children can't fathom this, thank the heavens. "Mom and dad! What kind of world did you bring me into?!!? :(

      :twisted:
      \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
      Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Kitsune
        I don't think filthy rich people make up that large a voting block, so I feel the argument that Bush does this to buy votes doesn't really stand up at all. You could however, argue that Bush was doing these things so that large companies would give large contributions to his campaign, and you'd no doubt be correct...
        Yes, I am definitely talking about support as well as votes. They go hand in hand, I think. The support pays for better/more campaigning, which theoretically lands more votes.

        The filthy rich aren't a majority by any means, but don't go thinking that Bush doesn't consider them his most important constituents! There is a scene in Fahrenheit 911 where Bush is addressing some of The Nation's Elite at a high-priced dinner function and he says something to the effect of, Some would call you the Haves and Have Mores; I call you my base!

        That's very telling.

        --------------------------------------

        Originally posted by Jerico
        Ever heard that "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer?" Well, now you know where it comes from.
        Oh, yeah...

        "Fighting fire with empty words,
        While the banks get fat,
        And the poor stay poor,
        And the rich get rich,
        And the cops get paid,
        To look away,
        As the one percent rules America!"
        --Queensrأ؟che, Spreading the Disease from Operation Mindcrime
        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

        Comment


        • #94
          32 Felony Indictments Returned in DeLay Case
          By Jay Root and John Moritz
          Star-Telegram Austin Bureau
          Tuesday 21 September 2004

          AUSTIN - A Travis County grand jury returned 32 indictments in the 2002 Republican fund-raising investigation Tuesday, alleging felony election code violations against a top aide to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, the head of a political group DeLay founded and eight corporations that provided money for their activities.

          Among the companies indicted on grounds that corporate money was illegally funneled into the 2002 legislative elections were Sears and Roebuck, Westar Energy Inc., Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and Bacardi USA.

          Three people were indicted: John Colyandro, former executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority, a group DeLay founded; Warren RoBold, a DeLay fund-raiser; and Jim Ellis, a top DeLay political aide.

          An attorney for DeLay, Steve Brittain, said the congressman was cooperating fully with the investigation spearheaded by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. But Brittain raised questions about the timing of the indictments, issued just a few weeks before the 2004 elections. "All of these people felt very comfortable that they were not violating the law, that they were following the rules as they understood them," Brittain said. "On behalf of Congressman DeLay, we agree, we don't believe that anyone intentionally violated the law."

          Earle, a Democrat, said the indictments stem from a 22-month investigation his office made into Republican fund raising on behalf of Texas House candidates during the 2002 election cycle. He said the investigation will continue after the present grand jury's term expires on Sept. 30.

          "Texas law makes it a felony to both give and receive political contributions from corporations and labor unions," Earle said during an afternoon news conference. "In the fall of 2002, after the Texas Association of Business boasted that it had engaged in the wholesale flaunting of that law, this office began its investigation."

          It was not immediately clear whether Earle intends to seek additional indictments, but he did say that more work remains to be done.

          Republicans have suggested that Earle's investigation was politically motivated, and at one point GOP Gov. Rick Perry suggested that the district attorney was on a "witch hunt."

          But speaking with reporters before the indictments were unveiled, Perry said that he, like most Texans, supports "the grand jury system."
          \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
          Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

          Comment


          • #95
            Too much to tackle individually...

            Many random thoughts. Trickle down economics is fundamentally flawed because it assumes the benevolence of the rich. I'm not calling the rich greedy as a blanket statement, rather, I'm saying that I'm not ready to depend on some sense of noblise oblige. (Sorry to use Latin--especially without italics :) )

            Teresa Kerry is her own woman. What she does or doesn't do with the company she inherited shouldn't be proxy for what John Kerry would or wouldn't do with the country, nor should we assume that he would create some kind of special exception for her or her company.

            Poor areas have failing public schools because school funding depends on local tax bases and state expenditures. The federal government was also supposed to help, but that was one of the children that got left behind. My point is that the people who would need the most help from vouchers have nowhere to use them. Where I grew up, if I could have gotten a voucher, I would have ridden on a bus about 40 miles each way to use it. Some people depend on public schools, so if the public abandons them...

            Corporate favors are part of politics, but that doesn't make them right. Clearly they help campaigns acquire money (on both sides), even if they don't directly help them acquire votes.

            Tom DeLay has been like Teflon, but he is starting to screw up. His organization in Austin will probably take the hit, which won't directly hurt him nationally, but it will certainly take away some of his influence here in Texas. Most importantly, it will hurt the smug SOB's pride.

            Managed this entire post without personal attacks on anyone but Tom DeLay. That one is allowed. :)

            Comment


            • #96
              It's about time you chimed in here, Doc!! :o
              \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
              Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

              Comment


              • #97
                Thanks, Jer. I had a busy weekend and a busier beginning to the work week. Apparently I was missing some of the fun :D

                Comment


                • #98
                  I've learned a valuable lesson in the "changing the rhetoric" thread. I'm changing mine!!!

                  Peace and love and flowers to all!!!

                  :P


                  :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    I don't think trickle down relies on the benevolence of the rich, it relies on their greed and their confidence in the economy. The idea is that when they have more money to spend, they will spend it by either investing in new companies (which creates jobs) or buying material goods like yachts and personal jets (which creates jobs.) The big flaw with this is that trickle down is ineffective during an unstable economy because people will take the extra money and save it. The theory itself isn't unsound, too much in the way of taxes can stifle the economy, the trick is finding the right balance.

                    Comment


                    • Holy crap!!! All out war, and I had nothing to do with it!!!!

                      Couple things.

                      First, Psychic, I don't want to pile on, but a lot of the arguments vis-a-vis corporate jobs overseas are inconsistent. I mean, the vast majorioty of companies that move jobs overseas are moving them to their own plants, and are moving them to locations in which they do business. India has a market of over 1 BILLION people; there is very little that can be sold that cannot be sold in India. I doubt that rationalization would diffuse the job issue one bit.

                      "The companies that do not do business in, say, India but ship jobs there anyway are the ones who should be ashamed. Got it now?"

                      I would guess, though I have no data to support it, that this is a small minority. In any event, if they don't sell in those countries, they would have to consolidate the increased income from shifting the jobs, and therefore pay increased taxes in the U.S., so even there, there is a benefit to the U.S.

                      Comment


                      • As for the contribution numbers: BOLLOCKS. The source? "BoycottBush" site. No bias there. Let's go here: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/...asp?cycle=2004 for an unbiased look. It should surprise anyone with an open mind that a) the numbers don't match with the anti-Bush site (possibly due to timing; the second source is for "2004", and the anti-Bush site is dated 2003, but b) more importantly, that THESE EVIL DISGUSTING CORPORATIONS ARE SPLITTING THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS. Is Microsoft somehow more pure or less interested in special interests for giving more money to the Dems?? How about Time Warner? So much for busting the liberal media bias myth. THEY GAVE 77% OF THEIR DONATIONS TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. VIACOM GAVE 79% TO THE DEMS!!!!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill
                          First, Psychic, I don't want to pile on, but a lot of the arguments vis-a-vis corporate jobs overseas are inconsistent.
                          You did say "the" arguments and not "your" (meaning my) arguments, which is good, because I have never been inconsistent in my opinion in this matter.

                          Originally posted by Bill
                          I would guess, though I have no data to support it, that this is a small minority.
                          And, respectfully, I'd have to venture a guess that you'd be wrong. Banks. How big are our American banks? As I've stated before, Washington Mutual recently sent their entire call center to India. They do not do business in India. They are huge. They are not the only one. And that's just banks. I could go on...


                          Originally posted by Bill
                          In any event, if they don't sell in those countries, they would have to consolidate the increased income from shifting the jobs, and therefore pay increased taxes in the U.S., so even there, there is a benefit to the U.S.
                          So, in essence, trade some tax money from big companies for American jobs. Sure, the recently downsized unemployed WAMU call center worker would surely be on board with your logic. Give it a big thumbs up because "there is a benefit to the U.S." (Nevermind that the "benefit" will not go towards putting food on the his table.)
                          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kitsune
                            I don't think trickle down relies on the benevolence of the rich, it relies on their greed and their confidence in the economy. The idea is that when they have more money to spend, they will spend it by either investing in new companies (which creates jobs) or buying material goods like yachts and personal jets (which creates jobs.) The big flaw with this is that trickle down is ineffective during an unstable economy because people will take the extra money and save it. The theory itself isn't unsound, too much in the way of taxes can stifle the economy, the trick is finding the right balance.
                            I understand the idea of how its supposed to work, but that's another reason why I see it as flawed. Assuming that investing in new companies or even reinvesting in present ones creates new jobs is too large of a jump. Many times, capital investment or reinvestment actually cuts jobs-- ask any factory worker who has lost a job due to automation. The company does much better, but the workers don't see any of the benefits.

                            Labor and capital are two entirely different concerns.

                            By the way, you also point to why large tax cuts don't necessarily help economic growth. If people simply save their money, it actually hurts the economy (beyond adding to the national debt and the growing deficit).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kitsune
                              I don't think trickle down relies on the benevolence of the rich, it relies on their greed and their confidence in the economy. The idea is that when they have more money to spend, they will spend it by either investing in new companies (which creates jobs) or buying material goods like yachts and personal jets (which creates jobs.) The big flaw with this is that trickle down is ineffective during an unstable economy because people will take the extra money and save it. The theory itself isn't unsound, too much in the way of taxes can stifle the economy, the trick is finding the right balance.
                              I understand the idea of how its supposed to work, but that's another reason why I see it as flawed. Assuming that investing in new companies or even reinvesting in present ones creates new jobs is too large of a jump. Many times, capital investment or reinvestment actually cuts jobs-- ask any factory worker who has lost a job due to automation. The company does much better, but the workers don't see any of the benefits.

                              Labor and capital are two entirely different concerns.

                              By the way, you also point to why large tax cuts don't necessarily help economic growth. If people simply save their money, it actually hurts the economy (beyond adding to the national debt and the growing deficit).

                              Comment


                              • It is interesting that the moraly upright party of tax cuts is also the party of gambling and sports stadiums.

                                Not bread and circuses, but decay and circuses.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X